Actually, I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell......about a lot of things.

There a things in life that I don't need to know and one of them is the sexual orientation or sexual practices of my co-workers. I am also not interested in receiving unsolicited information about many other aspects of other people's lives. Religion, bathroom practices (Titus), political persuasions.

Unless we are personal friends....I'm not going to ask....and you can please shut up ....don't tell me.

We would all be better off with a little discretion and respect for each other's differences.

I am of two minds here. On the one hand, I think that it is time that the military stops overtly discriminating against Gays in the military, esp. in non-intimate situations, which likely includes a significant majority of all postings.

On the other hand, I really am tired of hearing about Gay this and Gay that. I really don't need to hear whether someone is Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Transgendered, etc. And from that point of view, I don't mind don't ask/don't tell.

I wouldn't mind if Don't Ask, Don't Tell were repealed. The middle of a war might not be the best time to go about it, but really, when is a good time? If it's important, let's get it done, so we can get the unpleasantness out of the way and get back to killing terrorists. Basic trainees will have to come up with a new way to get sent home when they can't hack Basic, and a few MOS's won't have an easy way to avoid being stop-lossed anymore, but at the same time gay soldiers who want to stay won't be forced out either.

But Obama has no credibility on this issue. Neither do the Democrats in Congress. At any time, up to last year, he could have introduced a bill to do this. He could have staked his reputation on it, he could have shepherded it through committee, made a stand, lobbied to get the 3/4 votes necessary to override a possible veto. And we don't even know that Bush would have vetoed it, because the Democrats never once bothered challenging him on the issue. Injustice to gays means nothing more to Democrats than a whip to prod well-meaning liberals to the polls.

The Obama Administration's policy goals are emergency socialization of the USA Province of the World Governing Authority in order to smooth out any confusion and allow a quick and successful merger of Governments. The Gay Issues will not have much clout anymore in a World to be administered by UN treaty. The former Gay issues have no importance. Barney Frank will not need to be asked anything and will not have any power left by next year.

BJM said... Forcing the issue may be the only solution. My father was career Army and he was pleased in how quickly African-Americans were assimilated once the issue became moot. It was a point of pride.

The military needs to man up and do it themselves as it's the right thing to do.

Why?

The military practices "don't ask, don't tell - widely".

Besides homos, recruits from W Virginia are not asked about incest, those from New Mexico are not asked about beasiality, and those from Utah about polygamy.

Dust Bunny, what you describe sounds more like "don't ask, don't care" which is the correct policy.

From all appearances, most of the military would be just fine lifting the ban, but it is kept in place by a small number of religious fanatics (yes, I know, U.S. style, which is nothing like Islam style) who have drawn a line in the sand before certain key fundamental points of equality before the law. Namely, military service and marriage. If they can win here, they can keep gays as second class citizens.

Ultimately, Obama's saving grace is that he's a gutless chump who will always back down in the face of opposition. Otherwise, he'd really be radical.

Not really the point, is it? Clinton instituted it and he's not classed in with the homophobes like those awful Republicans.

As for religious fanatics, I note that the late Col. Hackworth was against it, essentially, for morale reasons. I never once heard him talk about religion, though he may have been a, em, closet fanatic or something.

As much as I like this blog, I have to say Ann was a lot more even-handed before Obama was elected President. Since then its been a steady stream of snarky remarks and sneering outrage- I dont think shes linked to a story or made a post that implies that Obama hasnt been a total disaster. She doesnt seem to do moderate anymore.

The military needs to man up and do it themselves as it's the right thing to do.

The military can't pick and choose which laws they have to obey. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was enacted by a solidly Democrat controlled Congress in 1993 and signed into law by a Democrat president (Clinton). Until the law if repealed, the military has no choice but to comply. Too bad academic airheads at places like Yale can't understand this.

Thats a fair point and I hadnt thought of it that way. That said, its hard to find moderate blogs out there and one reason I became a regular here during the elections was that this was one of the few blogs that took shots at both candidates and was clearly moderate and restrained. That appears to have changed now. Perhaps she is unconsciously playing to the gallery. The majority of posters here are very hostile to Obama after all and it seems that hostility is increasingly reflected in her own posts. Just my two cents.

Gays in the military is not being held back by fanatics, religious or otherwise. It's being held back because not one person who claims to support it will submit a bill to change it.

It's a federal law, folks. The military can't just stop obeying it, neither Bob Gates or Barack Obama can just decide it doesn't exist anymore. What has to happen is one Democratic Congressman has to look down, notice that he has a pair, and submit a bill, then let everybody vote on it.

But they won't do that, because they'd much rather blame it all on the big, bad Republicans. They care more about donations than justice.

That said, its hard to find moderate blogs out there and one reason I became a regular here during the elections was that this was one of the few blogs that took shots at both candidates and was clearly moderate and restrained. That appears to have changed now.

How is repeatedly saying that Obama is like Bush "immoderate"?

If she was constantly attacking him for being a left-winger or crypto-socialist you could legitimately cite that as an example of a rightward tilt. But pointing out ways in which the Democrats and Republicans are similar? Do you see many Republicans saying Obama is like Bush? Many Democrats?

For that matter, how is the "Obama is like Bush" meme an example of hostility towards Obama? Our hostess didn't dislike Bush. She doesn't dislike Obama, either.

What was she supposed to do, exactly? I know she wants to reject part of the stimulus--the expansion of government part--but I don't know if she actually has the mojo to stop it.

I can't pretend that Obama's approach is sensible: It's not. What I think is going to happen--basing this on what I see as a parallel between the '30s and now--is that the economy's going to start to recover and then, bang, the "stimulus" will kick in a wipe out the recovery.

That's just my best guess, and I hope I'm wrong. But when Obama considers FDR's actions as settled science, I get an eerie feeling that I'm not.

Revenant- Perhaps I chose the wrong word there. perhaps I should have used 'balanced'. Not only are the vast majority of the stories anti-Obama but there's usually a snarky and sneering tone to them. I still like the blog, I was just giving my opinion on how I think its changed.

The military needs to do this voluntarily, not begrudgingly, as it would serve the military better if they fully practice the ideals and principles on which this nation was founded and they ably defend.

BJM, what you fail to understand or refuse to understand is that the Military doesn't have a choice. The US Congress passed a law and Clinton signed it into law and as such they are bound to uphold the law.

The military upholds the laws and follows the Constitution. That is one of the principles that our nation was founded upon. Separation of powers. The military doesn't make the laws, the President doesn't make the laws (although he can certainly persuade and propose policy that will be come law). Congress makes the law. If you have a problem with DADT, take it up with your Congresscritter.

Based on your logic any form of spending that results in future savings are out of the question?

No credible path to cheaper healthcare has been offered. Then there's the uncomfortable fact that government "assistance" in an area has, in the past, always resulted in price increases: food stamps and grocery bills, health care and medical expenses, student aid and tuition costs, etc.

So really this is just a matter of spending $10 billion of our money now so that we can spend even more of our money later. Obama hasn't discovered a magical way to repeal the law of supply and demand. :)

Jeremy... she said no thanks to that particular earmark because of the strings attached that would not benefit the people of her State.

All these so called bail-outs have some serious strings attached to them as many in private industry are now painfully finding out. The government and especially this regime doesn't do anything for free.

The Althouse interest in Obama stories seems to be focused on the contradictions she sees between his opportunity to be a truly great President and the easy stuff of governing that Obama has acted like he is oblivious to, or for which he is too focused on some grand strategy of reformation. Obama seems to have a Harvard Professor's noble to do list for the country, but no will to act on it. Since Althouse has been around these theoretical types at U of Wis., she probably has become allergic to their constantly missing the boat in the everyday practical duties of running an Administration. It wont get done by wishing. Maybe Obama should hire us a Manager as the everyday President, and move on to the next election campaign.

Because you haven't been persuaded, don't want it, haven't seen the complete plan, that it can't possible be the correct course, can't possibly create massive savings for Americans?

I've asked this before but maybe you can answer this: Why are we the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care? Are all of these other countries just plain dumb? (I also have good friends who are physicians, and especially nurses, who always tell me we need is a single payer system much like Medicare and Medicaid for everybody.)

Id argue the story we are commenting on falls in that category. 'Shut up, they're busy" is hardly a nuanced approach to that story.

That's the charitable explanation. The more realistic and "nuanced" explanation is that they simply lied during the campaign and don't really enough about gay rights to expend any political capital over the issue. Would you feel better if Ann had wrote that instead? Or are you really complaining about the fact that she brought it up at all?

I've asked this before but maybe you can answer this: Why are we the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care? Are all of these other countries just plain dumb?

It is the nature of the state to acquire more power over time. This inevitably and inexorably leads to totalitarianism.

The Founding Fathers realized that and so did everything they could to limit the power of the state, where other countries came from more totalitarian background and so slipped into them more easily.

Here's the part of the equation you leave out: I don't want your health care; I don't think much of it at all; I sure as hell don't want to pay for it, and I don't want the occasional service I do want to have its price driven through the roof by monopoly.

Of course, I'm stuck paying for it. Just as I am with the substandard educational system, industry destroying unions, corrupt procurement processes for military and other areas, and for a two-party system where each party serves itself over all.

You said Obama was "trying to save massive amounts of money being spent by Americans?". You now concede that he doesn't actually have any idea how to do that. So that isn't why the $10 billion is being spent. QED.

Why are we the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care?

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Or could it be that our insurance companies have us by the ass?

The answer is simple and doesn't require paranoid conspiracy theories. Our demand for health care is growing much faster than the supply. Ergo prices are going up, as they always do when demand outstrips supply.

The Obama plan is to dramatically increase the demand for health care (by helping tens of millions of additional people buy it) without doing anything at all to increase the supply. This is supposed to -- heh! -- *lower* costs. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

They've made it perfectly clear what their intentions are, but right now it appears this specific action is not quite as important as righting the economy.

What is it you don't understand?

I don't understand how the two are connected, except in the way I already said. Do you really believe Congress is simply incapable of passing such a trifle of a bill? The only plausible explanation is that securing its passage would require the expenditure of political capital, and Obama simply does not care enough about that issue to spend it.

You want Ann, and others presumably, do give Obame all kinds of credit for having good intentions. To excuse this failure to follow through on his promises because he says he would if he could. No dice, talk is cheap.

My larger point was that Althouse seemed more balanced before the election but since then has been relentlessly anti-Obama. Others have pointed out that she tends to be contrarian and skeptical of those in power so such a shift in her approach isnt that suprising. I conceded that was a fair point but I still maintain the site has lost a lot of its balance and to my mind has suffered as a result. Thats just my two cents.

Id argue the story we are commenting on falls in that category. 'Shut up, they're busy" is hardly a nuanced approach to that story.

It is snarky but entirely accurate. What's the "nuance" that a "moderate" person should apply in this situation? The Obama Administration is punting on a campaign promise because they've "got a lot on [their] plates right now".

If pointing out that Obama's words and deeds differ counts as "anti-Obama" then obviously Ann's going to have a lot of anti-Obama posts. You can't honestly comment on his first two months in office without noticing the wide gulf between his campaign and his Presidency.

Alaska is set to receive $506.34 per capita, the highest in the nation. (Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group which tracks earmarks.)

Well, THAT's just not fair. They should get more. In exchange for having their natural resources locked away from productive use that might create jobs and wealth and for the government appropriating huge swaths of their land to be preserved as pictureseque parks for the wealthy, the people of Alaska deserve better.

A little reflection will show that not everything can be at the top of one's to-do list. It's on the list, and the Obama administration is working with the relevant stakeholders to resolve the issue.

And unlike Truman, who led infantry into combat, Obama like Clinton has not earned credibility and respect from active military with combat experience. Like a priest counselling married couples, he has an obstacle to overcome before people willingly take his advice.

A little reflection will show that not everything can be at the top of one's to-do list. It's on the list, and the Obama administration is working with the relevant stakeholders to resolve the issue.

And unlike Truman, who led infantry into combat, Obama like Clinton has not earned credibility and respect from active military with combat experience. Like a priest counselling married couples, he has an obstacle to overcome before people willingly take his advice.

What a great example of how to write a lot of words yet say nothing. What does that mean, "working with the relevant stakeholders?" What is this "obstacle to overcome?" It's a Dem President with an overwhelmingly Dem Congress. The military is obliged to follow whatever laws they pass, they don't have a choice and they don't have a voice. Congress could repeal it today if they wanted to, your confused verbiage notwithstanding.

DBQ, The prevailing military culture is established by tacit consent within a framework of laws, just as in the civilian world.

Attitudes can be changed within the culture. The military already provides more guidance and educational material about sex than any civilian workplace. They have legal means to change attitudes if they choose to do so.

If Obama has to "consult" with "the relevant stakeholders" before deciding whether or not to repeal DADT, how come he advocated repealing it before? I mean besides the obvious "he wanted the gay vote" reason, of course.

For pity's sake, Congress found time to hold hearings and pass that idiotic AIG bonus tax. You're telling me THAT was a higher priority than repealing DADT? Reclaiming a tenth of a percent of the AIG bailout money via probably unconstitutional means takes a front seat to gay rights?

The military already provides more guidance and educational material about sex than any civilian workplace.

So your argument is that even though the law orders the military to consider gay sex to be a dishonorable and illegal activity, the military should be devoting money and resources to "educating" its membership that there's nothing wrong with gay sex?

How exactly does that make any fuckin' sense at all? Here's an idea: if you want to educate the members of the military that there's nothing wrong with gay sex, maybe Congress should stop ordering the military to dismiss people who openly have gay sex. Its just crazy enough to work.

As an example: I can't imagine anybody here, who was an investor in a major corporation, asking the Board of Directors to review the kind of action being taken by a CEO or President of the corporation, after such a brief period. They would be laughed out of the room.

We have major problems right now and I just don't understand the intense scrutiny of literally every comment, policy suggestion or action taken or even considered by the Obama administration.

And if the Republicans, who constantly say they have a better solution to our problems, really do, then they should offer them up so we have a point of comparison and can provide the same kind of examination.

The advantage of being 'ahem'...older. You get to see the wheel come full circle. To be able to step back and take a look at all the wheels in the machinery and the bigger picture.

Sometimes that's a good and satisfactory thing...other times like now, not so much.

This might be why conservatives tend to look upon progressive/liberals with some ration of pity and annoyance. Most are so young. They view the world through youthful, unrealistic, uncritical, idealism: untempered by time or experience.

And if the Republicans, who constantly say they have a better solution to our problems, really do, then they should offer them up so we have a point of comparison and can provide the same kind of examination

The party out of power always says that, and seldom has anything. Case in point, the Dems.

Their solution to Bush's out-of-control spending? Spend 10x as much!

Now, really, if they'd come out and been honest about that, the races might have been a little closer.

The military is obliged to defend the United States. If Congress passes a law which impedes achievment of their mission, ignoring it is only rational.

Leadership can not rely on a naked show of authority.

That "naked show of authority" being elections, you mean?

This might be why conservatives tend to look upon progressive/liberals with some ration of pity and annoyance. Most are so young. They view the world through youthful, unrealistic, uncritical, idealism: untempered by time or experience.

Yes, where as tiresome and world-weary conservatives believe that leaders in our government would never EVER do anything wrong, so it's totally okay for them to torture and eavesdrop in secret without accountability to the courts or Congress because they only ever torture and eavesdrop on people who deserve it anyway. Naive, indeed.

Yes, where as tiresome and world-weary conservatives believe that leaders in our government would never EVER do anything wrong, so it's totally okay for them to torture and eavesdrop in secret without accountability to the courts or Congress because they only ever torture and eavesdrop on people who deserve it anyway. Naive, indeed.

....and I said this .....where?

Actually, conservatives don't trust government to do much of anything right.

Trooper: You got it! The average Democrat in a marginal congressional district is all for holding hearings on football and passing bills of attainder. Those are vote-winners. Repealing DADT might be a vote-loser, though, so its on the back-burner. A few supposedly safe Senate seats are looking shaky right now, too, so there isn't much enthusiasm among Senate Democrats either.

"Like a priest counselling married couples, he has an obstacle to overcome before people willingly take his advice."

Oh, dear.

The military is obliged to defend the United States. If Congress passes a law which impedes achievment of their mission, ignoring it is only rational.

There was a whole lot of ignoring the law against having females in combat in Iraq and once the Army and Marines weren't able to pretend they weren't doing it they couldn't get away with it like before. I agree, certainly, that part of what they teach you in the military is how to function around the rules. Still, the rules are *never* ignored.

Leadership can not rely on a naked show of authority.

The Congress can, however, change the rules anytime they want to do so.

Did Obama actually promise to repeal DADT? Or was that one of those things that he expressed in such a way that anyone would think that he agreed with them either way? He did a lot of that.

So.... are you saying if Congress passes a law which pulls the military out of Iraq and they feel that it impedes their mission that they should be free to rationally ignore it and continue fighting?

No, that would be changing their mission. Let's say that animal rights advocates succeeded in passing a law putting the military on a vegan diet. Or prohibitng them from using imported oil to fuel their vehicles.

You really remember Bush being "scrutinized" like this after 60 days or so?

C'mon.

Of course he was. It was all about how he didn't really win so he had an obligation to behave like the Democrats wanted him to, so whatever he did was groused about. That started on day one. He didn't have a *crisis* though, until 9-11, at which time even the Democrats liked him for a while.

Why are we the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care? Are all of these other countries just plain dumb?

Socialized health care is very, very good at spending money on routine checkups. This pleases most people, because most people are healthy most of the time, and they like being able to see doctors whenever they have a minor health issue. Being able to rush your child to the doctor for every bout of flu without having to worry about the cost is nice. With most people pleased, they vote to maintain the system.

Socialized health care is also very, very good at refusing to spend money on expensive lifesaving care that didn't exist when the system was formed. This doesn't affect most people, because most people do not need such care. And since those who are shorted on it die, they don't get to vote against it after experiencing the downside of the system. Often, the members of the family don't even know that an expensive treatment that would have had a 10% chance of saving the patient's life was not available due to lack of funding.

I would like a president who didn't lie about what he was going to do when he became President so he could get elected. I have not seen one in my lifetime. But that is no excuse for this one. You have to call him on it. No matter how much you shine this turd it still stinks. He lied to his gay supporters and this is just the first of many things he will screw them on. It seems like they have no where else to go. They are just going to lay back and take it. Right downtownlad?

You tried to change the topic.The military is obliged to defend the United States. If Congress passes a law which impedes achievment of their mission, ignoring it is only rational.

If the military felt that the law to stop fighting in Iraq threatened the the safety of the United States, you feel that they should rationally ignore that law?

If the military was told to ignore the civil war on our Southern Border and many of the military and their leaders (who come from those areas) felt that by standing down they were putting not only their own families in danger but possibly the security of the entire country....you would be ok with them rationally ignoring Congress's failure to pass a law or ruling to go to war and just start fighting anyway?

You can't pick and chose the rules you want to uphold because you like some and don't like others. That is a very very dangerous path to go down.

The correct path is to go through the processes and change the rules. And to further throw gasoline on the fire....this is what happened in California and why Prop 8 passed. People recognized that the rules/laws enacted by the people should not be back doored by a process that was not intended to make law. Separation of powers.

A bunch of gay guys really tortured this lesbian golfer by making her bring tons of room service on the Celebrity Apprenice last night. I bet the would be great at torturing information out of terrorists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the oath our Armed Forces take swear them to defend the Constitution, not the country itself?

I know we all recognize that FLS is talking out his ass on this whole "the military doesn't have to obey the law if it wants to" thing. But I'm pretty sure his specific claim about military obligations is wrong, too. The military might be able to defend the country while ignoring the law, but it cannot defend the Constitution while ignoring a Constitutionally valid law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

The military is obliged to defend the United States. If Congress passes a law which impedes achievment of their mission, ignoring it is only rational.

This shows a great ignorance of the US military on your part. The biggest thing that separates the US from those "coup of the month club" countries is our long tradition of civilian control of the military. The US military is adamant about maintaining this legacy (bad movies and books like "7 Days in May" notwithstanding). When a law like DADT is passed by Congress and signed by the president, the military has no option but to obey. They may not like it but they will obey. Failure to do so would undermine civilian control of the military. This is something no rational person would want regardless of their political leaning. As long as that law is on the books, it will be obeyed. Congress could change the law at any time but for whatever reason, they won't. Don't blame the military, put the blame where it belongs.

So it is ok for them to ignore that torture ban Obama signed, if they feel they need to in order to get information out of an enemy combatant.

Good to know. :)

That's actually a common and publicly proclaimed opinion from some of the most vocal "no torture" advocates.

They readily admit that they want any person to do whatever is necessary to protect this country... they just want it to be illegal because it makes us look really bad to officially sanction such things.

Granted, not brilliant sorts, but people like Matt Damon.

”Look, the best line about torture I’ve heard came from [retired CIA officer turned war-on-terrorism critic] Milt Beardon,” Damon says. “He said, `If a guy knows where a dirty bomb is hidden that’s going to go off in a Marriott, put me in a room with him and I’ll find out. But don’t codify that. Just let me break the law.’

“Which I think is right. You can’t legalize torture. But anybody would do it in that situation. You’d do it to me in that situation; you’d pull out my fingernails if you thought I knew something like that.”

Elcubanito- Continuing our earlier discussion: I may be on a slippery slope once I start trying to tell Ann how to run her blog, but let me be presumptous enough to try. He's messed up in some areas granted, but is there really nothing good to say about his administration? How about the occasional story that shows Obama in a positive light? How about longer posts stating her case rather than one sentence snarky remarks? Or weighing up both sides of issues rather than presenting them as cut and dried?

Steven - What do your comments have to do with my question of why we're the only industrialized country in the world without national health care?

Preventive medicine, opposed to people waiting until things turn much worse, would save us billions of dollars every year.

Do you consider a family taking their children in for regular check-ups abusive? Would you yourself wait if your kid was ill?

How about the elderly who need regular check-ups?

Is your option that we wait until the situation deteriorates into an emergency before we waste our time "spending money on routine checkups"??

Right now, opposed to being able to get an appointment to address an immediate situation, those without insurance are dependent upon going to the emergency room.

And the average wait time at major city hospital emergency rooms is between 8-10 hours. Would you want your kid or parent to wait that long before seeing a doctor? That's what people without insurance deal with every day.

Instead of getting a reasonably inexpensive prescription for an antibiotic to treat the flu, or an injury, many wait until the problem becomes something else entirely.

Blake - Saying Bush stole the election isn't the same as "scrutinizing" his administration's every move. It's a comment attributed to the "process" by which the man was elected. The Supreme Court also took hits, as did the Florida election commission, etc.

There are some fairly obvious problems with torture:1. How do you know you are not torturing an innocent person? A lot of people supported waterboarding and other possible torture in Guantanamo because they saw these men as Al-Qaida and therefore not worthy of American legal protection. But do we know how many of the men in Guantanamo bay were genuine terrorists? Havent many of them been released without charge? Isnt there a danger of assuming a captured person is automatically a terrorist?2. If you torture a man enough, he'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear. You'll then have intelligence operatives running around on bogus intelligence. Again, not very helpful.

Ending DADT really wouldn't be that difficult for the military. The only operational issues involved are privacy issues... which asking everyone who is to pretend they aren't gay or lesbian sort of solves. The rules are already such that no one is supposed to be having sex in public. So what's the real problem?

It's privacy and an unnecessary headache for those that have to deal with whatever new rules Congress decides to give them. Can't house men and women together... how about gays and straits? Gays together? What? Can't blame anyone for simply wanting not to have to deal with that headache.

Given freedom to accommodate their own needs the military would probably decide to continue to not know and not care with little more than an extra "let us know if you need a different roommate assignment" no questions asked... but in Real Life what happens is that Congress is going to get involved and say, hey, look at Britain or Israel or somewhere or other and they allow gays and lesbians but gay men, like women, are banned from this list of possible jobs and such and so and pretty soon it's not no big deal at all, it's requirements to properly identify your orientation and the commander *has* to know and the personnel office *has* to know, and you have to declare and proclaim and identify in order to avoid your commander coming foul of the law and ruining his or her career.

Obama is working on foreclosures, bailouts, getting the economy up and running, and Afghanistan. Now he is also in effect running GM (bad move, but he is.) Plus, he is also including in the budget bill legislation to deal with energy, education and health care.

When a President tries to do too much he ends up doing none of it well. Remember Jimmy Carter and his fourteen hour days?

Ya Bush fought off Gore in the Supreme Court and still managed to make more appointments of people that could-

Actually pay their taxes!

All while appointing less Czars.

btw- Obama "created" another Czar while you were sleeping-

Obama:

I am designating a new Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers to cut through red tape and ensure that the full resources of our federal government are leveraged to assist the workers, communities, and regions that rely on our auto industry. [Jonah Goldberg NRO]

madawaskan- thats just a bunch of strawmen with no substance. I didnt say Althouse should brownose Obama and I didnt say only Ann should provide balance and I certainly didnt say conservative opinion should be crushed. It would be more useful to deal with the actual points I made.

Jeremy, remind me again, what do torture and Sarah Palin's refusal or acceptance of bailout money have to do with DADT?

Minzo, you will find that it has also been the case in other topics regarding the previous administration. Why should she change that for the current one? Does this administration deserve a deferent (and different) treatment?

blake - So you use an article from a country that has national health care to make a point about why we shouldn't have national heal care?

Does the article say anything about them getting rid of national heal care?

Here are a few points the article did make:

"Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost."

And

"In general, whether a particular preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk populations typically being the most efficient."

And

"In the face of increasingly constrained resources, there is a realistic way of achieving better health results: conduct careful analysis to identify evidence-based opportunities for more efficient delivery of health care — whether prevention or treatment — and then restructure the system to create incentives that encourage the appropriate delivery of efficient interventions."

They also said candidates oversetimate the savings attributed to preventive services...now there's a real shocker.

But, the bottom line is this:

If the health services are controlled and directed at specific "targets" they can produce savings. If they are not, they probably won't.

Much like any other service provided via the government or private industry.

And you never answered my previous question: If you child or parents are sick, would you wait until things get really bad before taking them to your doctor?

Or do you already have the kind of insurance that allows you to do the most prudent thing?

blake - Do you really think all countries torture? And even if you do, that it's okay for America to follow suit?

I had previously believed what Minzo stated: That it's ineffective. That would be a comforting thought.

I'm not an intel expert. They tell me they got good info out of the few people they tortured. Saved American (and other) lives.

Saying "no" to torture is an easy moral high ground to take. It'd be easy to say "No! Never!" Especially because I'm not going to be in that situation. So I can Monday morning QB the whole thing.

But not only do I want our people able to make the right decision--even if that involves torture--I want them to be trained enough to use good judgment, and to have all of us stand behind them when they do.

Zero tolerance, as discussed elsewhere, is just a cheap way of saying "I don't want to have to think about it."

I won't do that. I also think it's useful, from a PR standpoint, that enemies think we're capable of anything when it comes to self-defense.

Waterboarding seems relatively humane, actually. It's fast and non-permanent. I wouldn't want to undergo it--I'd cave in seconds as apparently most everyone does--but it beats having your testicles wired up to a car battery.

I don't object to the debate however. I think it's fine for it to be upsetting.

former law student said... A little reflection will show that not everything can be at the top of one's to-do list. It's on the list, and the Obama administration is working with the relevant stakeholders to resolve the issue.

That is intelligent observation.

And unlike Truman, who led infantry into combat, Obama like Clinton has not earned credibility and respect from active military with combat experience. Like a priest counselling married couples, he has an obstacle to overcome before people willingly take his advice.

That is dumb. The military loved Eisenhower, who never personally saw combat. And Nixon, who was a supply officer, albeit one who saw combat...and Reagan who served on Hollywood film lots..We would be foolish to think "combat experience" is a vital prerequisite of sorts to be a US civilian leader. It would narrow the pool down to about 1.5 million since Vietnam out of 300 million citizens. And that pool includes many who never saw direct combat - and includes a considerable number unfit to lead a dog, let alone a nation.

former law student said... "The military is obliged to follow whatever laws they pass, they don't have a choice and they don't have a voice."

The military is obliged to defend the United States. If Congress passes a law which impedes achievment of their mission, ignoring it is only rational.

Leadership can not rely on a naked show of authority.

And FLS follows with another astute observation. The military cannot afford a fetishization of "Rule of Law" when it conflicts with what they see as duty and mission to defend the Nation and the whole of the Constitution, not just parts.

The military is properly wary of civilian law. And the trap of following a Congress or Court trying to usurp a Commander in Chiefs constitutional duties in war.In the Civil War, the military ignored the Supreme Court, Congress, knew they were violating part of the Constitution to save the whole - and kept answering only to their generals, the Secretary of War, and Commander in Chief Lincoln. A good call, by them.

The military loved Eisenhower, who never personally saw combat. And Nixon, who was a supply officer, albeit one who saw combat...and Reagan who served on Hollywood film lots..

And George W. Bush, who flew fighters state-side and played hooky on guard weekends.

(And as a former enlisted person might I just say that any junior officer with nothing to do who goes and does it *somewhere else* is fabulous in my book. Make-work, you know, always makes it's way downhill.)

Jeremy, it's called a "topic hijack". Please do use the proper term. I am extremely capable of following multiple lines of discussion at once; however, it is clear that you want to steer the conversation away from a rather thorny topic (thorny for your Messiah (PBUH) and his devotees). It's all right, carry on.

Ah, Jeremy, your descent into the world of ad hominem means we're about at a close.

I've never had insurance because I hate bureaucracies. I'd rather go to a doctor, pay my $50 or $200 or whatever it is, than introduce a third party into the scheme.

I'd also like the option to go to a chiropractor, an acupuncturist or a Voodoo doctor, depending on what I think is best.

Ask people with diabetes? My son has diabetes, let me ask him. Nope, he's not for "affordable government health care either."

Dumb, dumb argument.

The whole system is insane and the government--which started us on this road by making health insurance free for a portion of the population--is just making it worse.

They won't just lower the cost for a few by making it a whole lost more expensive for everyone else. They'll limit what can be done based on what they feel your life is worth and they'll stifle innovation.

How anyone can look at the educational system and say, "Yeah, that works out great. It only costs three times as much per student as an average private school, and teaches almost a third as well! We should have these guys run healthcare!" is beyond me.

That question applies to all military operations. How do you know the people you're bombing are hostile? How do you know the people you're shooting are a threat? The answer is that there obviously IS no way to be completely certain. You play the odds.

Havent many of them been released without charge?

During WW2 we held hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants for years before releasing them without charge. Does that mean holding them was a mistake? Or is it that you've confused a criminal proceeding with a war?

The reason for holding these people is that we are still at war. Releasing suspected enemy troops during a war is idiotic. They end up rejoining the fight against you.

Isnt there a danger of assuming a captured person is automatically a terrorist?

There isn't any danger to Americans. :)

2. If you torture a man enough, he'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear.

Which is why you only use torture to obtain information you can confirm independently.

Say you stole $1 million from me and hid it. I ask you where the money is and you don't tell me. I cut off your left pinky and ask again. You lie to me and tell me the money's buried behind your house. I check; it isn't. I come back, cut off your left ring finger and ask again. Eventually you get tired of losing fingers and tell me where the money actually is.

It is all a matter of knowing the right kinds of questions to ask, and knowing what torture will or won't get you. Torture is THE most effective means of getting objectively quantifiable answers. It is a lousy means of answering open-ended questions like "name all the terrorists you know".

Before the election there was McCain to kick around. Who stands against Obama now?

Besides that, Obama made promises during his campaign and people made very fantastic claims about him. There's nothing wrong in pointing out his short-comings as long as they are true. If you want to feel bad, feel bad about Obama. Don't shoot the messenger because you are disappointed in our President.

If the health services are controlled and directed at specific "targets" they can produce savings. If they are not, they probably won't.

You think insurance actuaries are bad about controlling costs and only allowing certain procedures to targeted patients and disallowing the same procedures for others? Woooh Boy...Just wait until we get government bean counters in charge of determining who is worthy of care and who is not.

Personally, I wouldn't want the government doing a cost benefit analysis on my right to care or right to live.

And you never answered my previous question: If you child or parents are sick, would you wait until things get really bad before taking them to your doctor?

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. I would wait and wait some more. Most illnesses get better without any help from the doctor...just some common sense home remedies, bed rest and time.

While I have a high deductible and very expensive policy on myself, my husband is uninsurable. We pay cash for all of his prescriptions and doctor visits. We are both self employed so there is no deep pocket sugar daddy to go to for insurance, so we do the best we can and pray that neither of us become deathly ill because we would be one big illness from being insolvent. Last January (2007) my husband had a re-occurrence of a bleeding ulcer. Other than some transfusions in our local country style doctor's office, we treated him the same way they would in the hospital. Except that it cost us just under a thousand dollars instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So would socialized health insurance help....maybe. But maybe not. The bean counters might look at my husband's health issues and decide that it really wouldn't be worth the trouble to treat him. Or the process of getting through the government sausage grinder might take so long that it would be moot anyway.

What I do know is that there is no way on God's green earth that the government can efficiently run even a lemonade stand. We would be better of with a privately run system, perhaps subsidized with some government funding. But keep the idiot pencil pushers out of the business....please.

Young people don't need health insurance as a general rule. Accident insurance, major major medical...you bet. It is a waste of money for a young person to pay for full insurance. In a government run system, just like Social Security, the burden of payment falls on those who least need the coverage to subsidize the people who do use and need coverage. The only way to lessen that burden is to ration the care for the middle aged and elderly. You like that idea?

I then explained exactly what normal human motives prevent basically intelligent people from agitating to abolish their objectively stupid, patient-killing, innovation-stifling national regimes of health care rationing.

Now, true, I didn't explain why the U.S. didn't adopt an objectively stupid, patient-killing, innovation-stifling national regime of health care rationing in the first place. The reason we didn't is because socialism was never as popular in the U.S. as it was in the rest of the industrialized world. Thus, socialist policies never got off the ground here in the way they did elsewhere in the industrialized world.

Now, why that was true moves us off into the realm of speculation about the culture of America, but the failure of Eugene V. Debs and Upton Sinclair to create a mass movement equivalent to the social democrats of Europe cannot be placed at the feet of Aetna or Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

We can just be thankful they never did, and do our best to stop Obama from imposing an objectively stupid, patient-killing, innovation-stifling national regime of health care rationing.

I don't want my son's diabetes cared for at the expense of my daughters' chances for cervical cancer. (Or at the expense of a nation's freedom--even the most exaggerated numbers of uninsured place it at about 12-15% of the population.)

Limitations WILL arise. They are inevitable. Some will get better care, most will get worse, and everyone will lose the freedom to make their own decisions.

You and I are not on the same page, nor will we ever be: If the government could provide adequate medical care at a reasonable cost I still wouldn't want it.

I wouldn't send my kids to public school even if they weren't cesspools (or, at best, petri dishes of mediocrity and political correctness).

I don't agree that every child should go to school or that everyone should see a doctor.

Get it? In a world where our government didn't break land-speed records in commission of tragic, poverty-creating errors, I still wouldn't want it involved.

They interfere with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As I've written elsewhere, every noble goal of socialism can be achieved through free markets. The complement is not true: The benefits of free markets cannot be achieved under socialism.

This is not a numbers game for me. Because, first of all, I'm not going to believe you: The government never makes anything cheaper. All they can do is hide the cost. (And hidden costs always lead to corruption, as a bonus.)

But more importantly, there's no way it's going to be good. Special interests will get entrenched. If it ends up like our schools, we'll get doctors killing patients repeatedly, but we won't be able to fire them. We'll get massive bureaucracy with no "out".

I cannot wish for this, whatever glories you say it will bring.

And I observe that many Canadians come here for medical care instead of taking the free care in their country. And I think, it must be very bad there for our expensive care to be able to compete with free.

blake - Do you really think all countries torture? And even if you do, that it's okay for America to follow suit?

France, you know the country that the liberals love and hate to have mad at us; they torture. Their Secret Services are notorious for using extraordinary means to gain information. Ask members of the Milieu or Basque Separatists.

The Italians have used torture against the Mafia and continue to do so.

The Israelis use torture to get information from terrorists.

The English Secret Services use various methods of torture and interrogation techniques to get information.

The Spanish are no shrinking violets when it comes to torture either.

Then there is China and Russia.

Mexico is no stranger to unusual interrogation techniques.

Cuba.

Most, if not all of the Central and South American countries use torture.

There is a difference however. They do not admit it or publish it in their media. They have laws about secrecy and their personnel take them very seriously. They are also very good at denying it or just saying nothing. We find out about their activities after the fact and when history books or articles are written.

The world is not upset or mad at us for using torture. They laugh at us for getting caught by our own people and then fretting about it.

In any case, PVB, I'm glad the U.S. doesn't do it. I'm glad the Bush administration backed off of it and the Obama administration formalized that stance.

It's sad, though, that the only social liberal stands the President will take are symbolic. He opposes torture that has already ended; he promotes stem cell research that has largely been bypassed; he promises to close a prison, with no idea about what to do about the prisoners.

Gay marriage, DADT, drug decriminalization -- all non-starters.

One wonders if what these issues lack is reason to grow the government.

If you agree with socialized medicine, it means you think you yourself and all other American citizens are too stupid and delicate to spend your own money as you see fit, and need your betters to make all those hard decisions for you.

It means you admit you're weak and ignorant, not an adult but a child, and you need your mummy.

I think DADT should be overturned because it is inefficient. Why train people just to boot them out because of something that has nothing to do with the job?

If a Major doesn't like it that he's working with a big ol' Fairy, then some Colonel should come down on the Major's head and tell him to do his job and shut up. Similarly, if the BOF is antagonizing his co-worker (in some actual way, not by just existing), the Colonel should come down on BOF's head and tell him to do his job and STFU.

Just follow your orders people. Isn't that what those in the military do? (Don't know from 1st hand experience, obviously).

I'm not read this whole thread, so this point may have been made already -- it seems to have morphed into a health care thread.

Then get your congresscritter to overturn the DADT. The military cannot just stop enforcing the laws that Congress has passed onto them. They are under the control of the civilians and have to abide by the laws that civilians have put in place for the military. Unless and until Bambi gets interested in overturning it for real, something not likely to come up in everyday conversation at the WH until the next election when he will need the votes of the gays, then it is strictly a moot point. The SecDef can ask him to do something about it but it is still up to the Congressmen to bring up the bill, pass the law and send it to the president for him to sign. Until that happens, then all the talk about DADT is just that - talk.

What we have seen in the past few elections, since Clinton signed the law, is that the Democrats have gone to the gay populated areas such as the Village or San Fran or the UWS and have told the people that if you vote for them they will do something about DADT and gay marriage. The suckers vote for them and are then disregarded until the next election when rinse, repeat. The Dems play the gays like Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football. They have done this for about 15 years so far so why should they change now. Never mind that Bush tripled the expenditure on AIDS research and distribution of medication both here and at the source in Africa. That doesn't matter. Just hold that football for them and then pull it away when it gets close. It works, why change.

dick said: The military cannot just stop enforcing the laws that Congress has passed onto them. They are under the control of the civilians and have to abide by the laws that civilians have put in place for the military.

True, but the military has a constitutional right to an Appeal for Redress to their Congressional representatives.

One suspects that the SecDef and Joint Chiefs would not be refused if they jointly appealed to Congress to rescind DADT and CiC Obama would surely sign such a bill.

There are always lawful means in a democratic society to redress injustice if we wish it so.

Jeremy wrote: Alaska is set to receive $506.34 per capita, the highest in the nation. (Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group which tracks earmarks.)

That's a shock! Here's another news flash: Alaska also has the lowest per acre earmark allocation of all the states! What does either measure prove? Given Alaska's tiny population and it's vast size, breaking anything down on a per capita or per acre basis is apt to produce meaningless numbers.

I have a host of chronic medical conditions, including cancer. The idea of nationalized health care scares the hell out of me. When my recurrence was diagnosed in 2005 I was able to go to M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston for my treatment within a few weeks. I doubt that would happen under a government-run health care plan.

DADT? Don't know, don't care would be the best -- the only thing that makes me hesitate at all is I've heard some persuasive testimony for maintaining the status quo from people currently in the military. But I'm not in the military and therefore have no informed opinion. One woman I went to college with did the whole ROTC thing and declared she was lesbian (she was in the midst of a lesbian affair at the time) in her senior year. AFAIK, she never served post graduation. She got married a few years later, had kids, the whole deal. Worked out OK for her, huh?

When we have a majority of people who are or have served in the military in favor of repealing DADT, then do it; until then leave it the hell alone, and stop using this as a political football.

Nationalized Health Care: When anybody in favor of NHC can give me a list of 20 things that ARE NOT the government's job that the government has done well and efficiently, I might listen to the possibility of NHC. Get back to me when you have that list.

Torture: I'm in favor of anything that doesn't leave a mark. Then we can have the best of both worlds- we can torture the Hell out of anybody we want, and still declare we don't torture. No marks, no proof.

Some commenters have blogs; some don't even have profiles. Minzo, for instance, has had a couple of blogs; Minega Strikes Back and Minega's World, from which we learn that he is a Rwandan in his twenties who spent time in England as a student. Old England. I've learned something about the place of torture in the history of Mozambique, just this morning, from the middle part of one of his posts.

Jeremy and campy, whose profiles are "not available," could be anywhere. If they're far enough away, they wouldn't know that the New England Journal of Medicine wasn't a competitor or successor to the original England Journal of Medicine. But anyone who had read the article well enough to quote it should have been able to figure that out. And if not that, then what?

So in the middle of a war on two fronts you think the Sec Def and JCS should appeal for the Congress to get them to implement an initative that will take a lot of planning and restructuring of the military and wonder of wonders Congress might do just that and the Pres would sign it. What a wonderful idea. They should ink that into their calendars on the next open date, about 2011 when Iraq has been drawn down and Gitmo has been closed. Personally I would rather they finished up what they are doing successfully and then deal with this but that is just me.

One suspects that the SecDef and Joint Chiefs would not be refused if they jointly appealed to Congress to rescind DADT and CiC Obama would surely sign such a bill.

Why on earth would they? They have enough warm bodies in uniform the way it is and changing the rules will just mean more work. Who asks for more work?

Not *even* if public opinion across the board (including the "brass") supported it would a sane person go hat in hand to congress and say "Please, may I?"

Putting this on the military is silly. The fact is that the congress-critters, the liberal Democrats with the majority in everything at the moment, aren't going to do it because it's not a winning issue for them.

And if I may couple this up with nationalized health care... military health care is good, sort of, so long as you're doing expected sorts of things in expected sorts of places and you've got your unit and NCOIC and OIC handy to look out for you. There's a reason for the medical scandals associated with Walter Reed and there's a reason that it took months upon months for my husband to get his herniated disks adequately cared for, the impossibility of second opinions without manipulating the system and flying 24 hours and walking into the brain-surgeon's office at Clark Air Base, civilian MRI's in hand because the doctor at his previous assignment refused to even *look*.